Thursday, 12 February 2015

4 reasons not to vote and to instead organise.

  1. Counter-productive: Voting draws energy away from grassroots direct action by oppressed people themselves and into politicians and political parties. It's a drain on energy and resources.
  2. Pointless and feeds illusion: The problem is the system, the structure not the person/people in charge. Whoever you vote for you will remain oppressed. The state exists to protect existing systems of oppression. The state is by necessity bound to follow the dictates of the market for example. It's not a problem of corruption or right wingers. It's the way society is organised and so voting is a waste of time and energy. By voting( even cynically or tactically) you continue the perception that the problem is WHO is in power when in actual fact the problem is that there IS POWER meaning power over, rule by the few over the many instead of direct democracy organised by the people themselves.
  3.  Wrong means for the ends:Voting cannot possibly achieve social change. If you favour democracy by which I mean ordinary people being in control of their own lives(Direct Democracy) then voting for politicians to decide for ordinary people instead of ordinary people deciding themselves cannot achieve this goal.The means to achieve the goal cannot be separated from the goal itself. You can't achieve a free society by oppression. Voting CANNOT make society better by it's very nature.
  4. History: Historically the vote has been extended to the working class,women, black people etc each believing allowing them access to voting would somehow make government more democratic. It has never done so. Changing the face of oppression does not change it's fundamental nature. It requires more than superficial change. Each time a party or politician will claim "this time things will be different" and they never are. Across the world there has been all sorts claiming this including green parties, socialist parties and 'communist' parties. All of them have either been ignored or sold our their principles out of necessity. Or if this does not happen they are killed or threatened by coup e.g. Salvador Allende. To argue for voting as effective for social change is to ignore massive amounts of historical evidence both past and present.

Against Voting.

*Needs editing and organisation*

"Thus we can't vote out wage-slavery. We can't vote out the extraordinary extremes of wealth and poverty that the capitalist system produces. We can't vote out the sacrifice of every ethical, moral, social, environmental and humanitarian consideration to the holy gospel of profit. We can't vote out the system that fulfills human needs only as long as the human beings involved have enough money to pay. We can't vote out patriarchy and institutionalised racism. We can't vote out the imperialist wars that the West is waging in Iraq and Afghanistan to control the flow of oil in the name of fighting the sort of terrorism that it perpetuates. We can't vote out corporations, private tyrannies with internally autocratic decision-making structures whose global reach renders the governments of individual nation-states obsolete as well as illegitimate. We can only vote for the carrot from the left or the stick from the right—either way, wage-slavery continues."

"If elections are just something in which some portion of the population goes and pushes a button every couple of years, they don't matter."
- Chomsky

Voting doesn't change anything. The fundamental power relations and forms of oppression which make up society will only be changed form. You can't vote away inequality.

You always have a right to complain, whether you vote or not. In fact it could be argued that you have less right to complain if you did vote since in voting you agree to whatever the result may be and that you vote for a candidate. I don't buy that argument though because I don't think the authority is legitimate in the first place. If you do you might be bound to that argument.

I believe voting is ultimately a sham and that it's almost irrelevant and insignificant in relation to people collectively taking action themselves at a grassroots level(Direct Action)

If we seek a society in which ordinary people are in control of their own lives( surely the very meaning of democracy) and I myself do then it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve that goal by means of voting.

At best voting is irrelevant and insignificant. At worse, it positively hinders other types of grassroots action and campaigns working for social change. That has proved true again and again, most recently in the referendum campaign.

You can indeed vote and organize and I find that less problematic. It's just rare to see people do both and rare to see people not be sucked into electoral politics.

The systems of oppression in society cannot be changed by changing the person in charge. It's not whos in charge but that there is power relations at all. It doesn't matter whether its Obama, SNP,SWP,SSP, Greens or anyone else. The systems of oppression in society will still exist. White supremacy can be fronted by a black man. And as Thatcher proved Patriarchy can be headed by a woman.

Voting has historically never proven to better society either. The working class got the vote, that never helped things. They just got co-opted. Women got the vote, they just got co-opted. Black people got the vote, they just got co-opted....

And we've had most parties have been in power somewhere in the world and have never made things better even 'communist' or green parties

We should judge political parties and politicians but what they do not by what they say, "actions speak louder than words after all"

Further reading:-

Don’t vote, organise – the reasoning behind the slogan

 Voting for the green party will not help either -


Friday, 6 February 2015

Why do people have faith in the state

Why do people have faith in the state when we know they are systematically and consistently corrupt, manipulative, protect those with wealth and power and are pathological liars. You only need to take events within recent decades: Hillsborough, the cover ups of the forced eviction of the indigenous peoples of Diego Garcia, the denials about the brutality against the Kenyans during the Mau Mau uprising in the '60s,  The combined assault on the miners during the 84-85 Miners Strikes(especially the lies of Orgreave), the killing of Mark Duggan,  Rape and sexual/emotional abuse of political protesters, Police survelliance of comedian protesters, political protection or neglect to investigate paedophiles, police brutality in cases such as Ian Tomlinson..

Even if you do not take the theoretical standpoint of anarchism, then the cumulative affect of consistent repeated deep seated and ongoing abuses/lies/scandals etc should surely tell you the state is inherently corrupt, inherently immoral and inherently illegitimate. It is dangerous naivety of the highest degree to believe otherwise.

Maybe the problem is that the state operates like an abusive relationship. The worst it acts the more people feel the need to defend it. Maybe this is out of some conditioned learned helplessness.

The state is inherently paternalist and disempowering.

 Democracy is about power to the people. The State is inherently by it's very nature opposed to that concept, opposed to democracy. The state by it's very nature is a small group of privileged distinct people deciding for everyone else. This is against the very meaning of democracy. This is against the very possibility of power to the people. The State and democracy cannot co-exist. One kills the other.
It's time democracy killed the state.